Julie Kirkbride: The Secretary of State will be aware that I share the location of the Longbridge factory with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). Probably like him, I have been receiving many distress calls this week from workers at the factory. As I understand it, one of the principal stumbling blocks with the Chinese is whether or not the factory can be made solvent during the two years that it will take to get the new cars into production. To that end, can the right hon. Lady tell us what efforts her Department is making to sell off the MG sports car, one of the pinnacles of British manufacturing successes, which might help to keep the plant afloat? Will she give us some of the details of the financial offering that has been made by the directors of Phoenix Venture Holdings? There are many people in the midlands who believe that they have lined their own pockets with the assets of the plant, which should now be available to keep the plant afloat.

Martin O'Neill: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the efforts that she and her colleagues are making in this matter. [Interruption.] It is a pretty sad day, albeit just before a general election, when the Opposition try to dress up cheap political points on such a serious matter as this, and rediscover the manufacturing industry, which they wanted to abandon for so long, not least because this country still has the most successful automotive assembly industry in Europe, in which foreign businesses are more than willing to put their money, rather than just the mouthings of the Opposition. [Interruption.]

Andrew Mitchell: May I, in the spirit of the words of the Minister, say that the Opposition agree with these amendments and therefore we will not vote against any of them. I do not think that that will come as much of a surprise to her. She is aware from the words of the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), that we largely agree with the Bill. Our reservations were on the issue of religious hatred. As she says, we will come to that issue shortly.
	We largely support the Bill. The Minister will confirm that it has been constructively debated in Committee and in both Houses. I believe that it has been improved. It has not had added to it the constructive approach that we took on intercept evidence. That has been debated in both Houses and there have been differences of view across the political parties. We regret the fact that that provision has not been included. We also regret that the provision for 24-hour fully manned surveillance and embarkation controls at our ports, which would have brought a big improvement to immigration and customs, has not been added to the Bill, although, as the Minister will be aware, that is a Conservative pledge in the forthcoming election. Had it been included in the Bill, it would have greatly improved it.
	I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for outlining what the amendments will achieve. In Committee, Opposition Members were keen that the agency should have operational independence and that the Home Secretary should not be able to set performance targets. We fully accepted that the Home Secretary should be able to set targets in respect of strategic performance, but not performance targets. These amendments accept our arguments.
	Amendment No. 12 concerns an important issue that touches on the role of constables. The Under-Secretary knows that there was disagreement in Committee and on the Floor of the House and we remain concerned that the Bill could undermine the role of the constable. She will have heard the words of the Police Federation and we are disappointed that the words of the Conservative party and of the federation appear to have fallen on deaf ministerial ears.
	The Under-Secretary has explained what the new clause is designed to do. I am grateful to her for that and, on that basis, we accept the amendments.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 12 agreed to.

Caroline Flint: I have already said that the amendments to schedules 7 and 18 simply make further consequential amendments and repeals in respect of existing powers of arrest made redundant by the new framework in clause 106. Amendments Nos. 27 and 44 are intended to deal with a particular problem that we faced in the aftermath of the Asian tsunami with the identification of British casualties. As hon. Members are aware, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said on 22 March that we currently estimate that were 169 British casualties of the tsunami who were either killed in the disaster or who remain unaccounted for. We believe that it may be possible to identify a small number of those victims by cross-checking DNA samples and fingerprints taken from the deceased against the national DNA and fingerprint databases. These amendments would enable such checks to take place.
	I am sure that the House would agree that we should do all that we can to help the relatives and friends of the victims of this terrible natural disaster by speeding up the identification of those victims by whatever means possible. I make it clear to the House that the amendments are not specific to the tsunami and would enable samples from any unidentified body to be checked against the national DNA and fingerprint databases for identification purposes.
	The amendments to schedule 8 are designed to ensure that chief officers have greater flexibility when conferring powers on community support officers. As the provisions of the Police Reform Act 2002 are currently constructed, where a chief officer confers a power on a CSO to require a person's name and address, he must also confer on that CSO a power to detain for up to 30 minutes pending the arrival of a constable. We believe that chief officers should be able to confer the power to require name and address without the power to detain. These amendments provide such flexibility so that CSO powers can be tailored to meet local needs under the direction of chief officers.
	The other matter that I bring to the attention of the House relates to Parliament square. It was evident on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report that there was passionate feeling on the issue on both sides of the House. [Interruption] Yes, there was passion from you as well, Mr. Speaker. Whether hon. Members are for or against what we are proposing to do, they cannot deny that there has been a great deal of discussion about it.
	We have tried to listen to concerns. We still believe that, for the reasons that we have outlined in numerous debates, we have to move forward to deal with the area appropriately. I reiterate what I have said on many occasions: we are not trying to prevent people from protesting, and we are certainly not trying to stop them doing it in Parliament square, but we think that there should be a framework of conditions. We are aware of the concerns about notification and those about Trafalgar square.
	As Baroness Scotland assured those in the other place, in exercising the order-making power in clause 135 we will ensure that Trafalgar square is excluded. As a result, demonstrations could continue there without the need for prior notification of the Commissioner.

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend puts the case eloquently. The clause in no way attacks the right of free speech. In no way does it attack the rights of comedians, academics, politicians or anyone else to criticise individual religions. We are trying to protect individuals against whom hatred is incited because of their religious faith. As I have said, we lifted the wording from that in the current law on incitement to racial hatred. That raises the question how Members of this place, and those in the other place, can support the law on incitement to racial hatred yet not support clause 124. As with incitement to racial hatred, a high threshold is set. There is also the Attorney-General's involvement. That would have applied in this instance, too.
	It is with acute disappointment that we are having to ask the House to agree to remove the provision from the Bill. The unelected House has chosen not to rise to the challenge of what I believe is a fundamental aspect of creating a decent society. The parliamentary timetable means that it will not be possible to insist on the inclusion of the clause without jeopardising the creation of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, and other important provisions to tackle crime. I do not believe that that is in anyone's interest.

Mark Oaten: This one and a half hour debate is not the time to rehearse the various arguments on the issue. Those arguments have been made many times. I simply make a few remarks on this controversial issue, which has got passions running on all sides.
	I have a great deal of sympathy with what the Government have been trying to achieve in these parts of the Bill. Our objections have not been about the end game— what they are trying to achieve—we simply believe that there are better ways to achieve that. We recognise the seriousness of the issue and we recognise that, for many groups, there is a real sensitivity about what are clear attempts to make racial remarks under the cover of religious remarks. There is a gap that needs to be resolved urgently because it is creating tensions in the community. It is an important issue that needs to be addressed, and we welcome the fact that the Government have sought to do so.
	Our disagreement with the Government has been that this important set of principles and piece of legislation has been tagged on to a big Bill that considers the way in which we organise police forces in this country. We felt that that was an inappropriate way in which to tackle the issue. Our proposal has always been for an equalities Bill, which would tackle many of these issues with a well thought through piece of legislation that dealt with discrimination, harassment and victimisation.
	I hope that in the next three or four weeks we do not have any nonsense from the Government suggesting in certain parts of the country that the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives have been trying to wreck the Bill and do not want to do anything to tackle the problem of religious hatred. That is not the case. We believe that it is a serious issue that needs addressing. However, it should be done properly and robustly via an equalities Bill, which is a way of addressing the issue more effectively. That is what we will argue in the next four weeks.
	Legitimate concerns have been put forward by a number of Members from all parts of the House, and not just by the Rowan Atkinsons of this world, but by organisations such as Liberty and PEN, the writer's organisation. They have raised concerns about the difficult balance between legitimate criticism of a religion and freedom of speech. The issue needs to be addressed, but the way to deal with it, and all the other issues, is not to tag it on to the back of a police Bill but to have a proper, well thought out equalities Bill. That is what we will argue in the next four weeks. The communities that want protection in this area should support an equalities Bill. It would give them the protections that they seek.

Richard Allan: I apologise to the House for arriving a little late and missing the first couple of minutes of the debate. I am unfamiliar with the hectic pace of legislation at this stage of parliamentary proceedings, being more used to the sedentary pace that we normally have.
	Having said that, speed has characterised the passage of the Bill. I was appointed to the Standing Committee expecting to take over after its first sitting, but when I arrived at the end to get my orders for the second day I found that the Bill had gone through in a single day. That reflects the fact that if legislation is sometimes revolutionary, this Bill certainly could not be so characterised—indeed, it is rather more evolutionary.
	We shall decline the invitation of the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) to vote against the Bill, on the ground that he explained: it creates a lighter-touch inspection regime for Ofsted. It would be illogical for a party that is genuinely concerned about bureaucratic burdens on schools and the potential intrusiveness of the inspection system to vote against a measure that makes it slightly less burdensome. We therefore do not intend to vote against the Bill.
	I want to put down a marker about schools' organisation, with which the Bill deals. We do not know how it will work in practice but, at this time of year, when allocations to individual schools begin to arrive on parents' doormats, I am sure that all hon. Members receive letters expressing concerns. There is a fundamental problem with the rhetoric that all the parties have been using in recent years, whereby they promote the notion of parental choice while regimes to remove surplus places continue to exist. There is a fundamental inconsistency in those positions because choice requires the availability of a certain amount of capacity to satisfy it. In the Bill, the Government take on centrally more of the burden of determining some of those difficult issues. They will remain difficult, and the regulations and subsequent detail that are relevant to the problem that I outlined will be important in the forthcoming Parliament and to Ministers, from whichever party they come.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Tony McNulty: I beg to move,
	That further proceedings on the Crossrail Bill shall be suspended until the next Session of Parliament.
	That if a Bill is presented in the next Session in the same terms as the Crossrail Bill when it was presented in this Session—
	(a) the Bill shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first time; and
	(b) the Standing Orders of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in this Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the next Session;
	That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
	I believe that people realise that Crossrail is a project of national, not only regional, significance. The strategic transport improvements that it brings will be experienced across the country and the scheme will be a catalyst for safeguarding a national economy that is strongly related to the performance of our capital city.
	Today, I simply wish to dwell on the parliamentary procedures of the carry-over motion rather than the detail and substance of the Bill. However, I shall say a few more introductory words. In transport benefits, Crossrail will enable better access to the capital for the hundreds of thousands of workers who commute into London every day. It will provide strategic interchanges for local, national and international business and leisure travellers. In economic benefits, London plays a major role in supporting regional economies and jobs, through commuting, product and service purchases, fiscal transfer and economic activity.
	The Bill was introduced on 22 February, and has subsequently been through several essentially procedural steps. When the Bill was deposited, it was supported by a regulatory impact assessment, a race equality impact assessment, a book of reference, an estimate of costs, an environmental statement and a non-technical summary of that statement, parliamentary plans and sections, a European Court of Human Rights statement, a housing statement and explanatory notes. Some 4,600 landowners notices were served and approximately 400 street and footpath notices were put up. The environmental statement comprises some 3,700 pages and nine volumes and is supported by a further 14,000 pages of specialist technical reports. The book of reference contains more than 5,000 entries, which would need to be re-checked if the Bill had to be deposited again because the book of reference must be no more than 28 days old at the time of deposit.
	The scheme as defined by the Bill, including the parliamentary plans and sections, a schedule of works and so on, represents the culmination of the best part of four years of work by Cross London Rail Links, which employs around 100 staff and 90 consultants. For those who are interested in such data, around 14 tonnes of material were distributed to 140 different locations to meet the requirements of Standing Orders, which include ensuring that documents are available for public inspection locally. Notices were also published to advertise the introduction of the Bill twice in the weeks of 21 February and 28 February in The Times, Evening Standard and 18 local newspapers along the route.
	The Bill was deposited and secured its First Reading, during which the whole route was safeguarded. Subsequently, because it had already been consulted on but was not part of the final declared route, the Abbeywood to Ebbsfleet route was also safeguarded. On 10 March, examiners—Clerks of the House who check compliance with Standing Orders—looked at the Bill, took evidence that notices had been served, documents deposited and advertisements made. They received no objections but they reported that the Bill had failed to meet Standing Orders relating to the time of deposit and notices.
	On 17 March, the Commons Standing Orders Committee met to consider the examiners' report and hear from the Government's agent why it was desirable, especially to minimise the period of uncertainty for those affected by the works, for the Bill to proceed as soon as possible despite the fact that it had not fulfilled the Standing Orders. The Committee decided to dispense with Standing Orders on timing, thus allowing the Bill to proceed. A similar procedure was undertaken in the other place by its Standing Orders Committee on 22 March.
	The purpose of the motion is simply to ensure that the Bill can be carried over for consideration in the next Parliament and that all the work that I have described and that has been done thus far is not wasted. Carrying a Bill over an election is feasible and, indeed, precedented for a hybrid Bill. There will be no curtailing of appropriate scrutiny. There will be the usual opportunities for hon. Members to debate the principle of the Bill on Second Reading, and for their constituents to be heard in front of a Select Committee composed of hon. Members of this House, and subsequently in a Select Committee of the other place. The Select Committee will sit in a quasi-judicial capacity and have the opportunity to hear a range of submissions in considering petitions against the Bill.
	If the Bill is not carried over, despite the cross-party support and that of the overwhelming majority of the business community in London, which has been vocal and forthcoming in its backing for the project, we would have to redo all that I described—for example, serving approximately 5,000 landowners with notices, advertising in the press and updating all the documents required at the time of deposit, thus doing again all the referencing to check everything that is entailed.Whatever people feel about the merits of the project, I do not believe that anyone is especially wedded to the notion that, purely because of the interruption—for want of a better word—of an election, the Bill should not be carried over and presented for Second Reading at the earliest opportunity. Several people are directly affected by the Bill and it would not be good public policy to make them undergo all those processes again and suffer the subsequent uncertainty.

Peter Luff: My right hon. Friend takes me to task for my characteristically lax use of language—something of which he is never guilty—and makes a powerful point about the problems that have been highlighted during this debate. I concur with him on that point.
	The Bill as drafted has several drawbacks and I am not at all sure that it is the right Bill to carry over. The first drawback is that it appears to give a lot of power to the Mayor of London. I understand that, earlier today, as part of the deal done on the Railways Bill, some of the powers that that Bill would have given the Mayor were removed. I am not sure that services running to the west of London, which will have a serious impact on the Great Western main line, should be handed into the power of the Mayor of London.
	Secondly, I am concerned about the Bill's long title, which states that the Bill is to
	"Make provision for a railway transport system running from Maidenhead"
	I like Maidenhead a lot. My family has strong links with the town and my great-great-great-great uncle was mayor of Maidenhead in the 18th century, so I am delighted that it is to have a wonderful new railway service—but that service should go to Reading, as the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) said. At this point, may I say that I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said about the hon. Lady? I wish her every happiness in the future. She has been a fine Member of Parliament and has made a fine contribution to our proceedings. She will be sorely missed.

Peter Luff: That is a genuinely helpful intervention, and I shall conclude very shortly, as I appreciate what the Minister has said. However, if the carry-over is agreed today—that will obviously happen—the Committee that considers it must look carefully at capacity issues for the west country, Wales, Oxfordshire, Wales, Worcestershire and Herefordshire. I fear that trying to fit all the freight and passenger services into those two railway lines could have serious consequences. The significant sums that the railway would cost would be better spent on other enhancements to the rail network, such as upgrading the entire line to the west country and Cornwall, a sadly neglected corner in the economic development of our nation. That is certainly the view of the west London branch of Friends of the Earth.
	In conclusion, if the Bill is carried over, we must be careful not to carry over a measure that could undermine significantly the transport interests of my constituents and many other people to the west of London.

Jeremy Corbyn: Like other hon. Members, I shall be brief in my support for the carry-over motion, which is essential if we are to make rapid progress in the next Parliament on securing funding for the scheme. To some extent, I agree with hon. Members that, while the Bill is important in putting such provisions into law, we also need an agreement on funding and the cost of the project. Costs are already high. If Mr. Kiley's figure are correct, they are already £14 billion to £15 billion. By the time, Crossrail is built, they will be considerably more, because inflation will have increased. We therefore need an agreement on funding and, like many other candidates in the election, I support the scheme and the funding that it requires.
	May I draw the Minister's attention to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about blight compensation? The line does not go through my constituency, and impinges only on the southern part of my borough but, because it is a massive scheme, it has an impact on everyone in London and could lead to incredible improvements in transport infrastructure. However, blight is a huge factor in long-term planning issues. Businesses and landowners around Heathrow terminal 5 have been given blight compensation from the beginning of that scheme. Unfortunately, people in the path of the Crossrail development, even if they support it, will not have their land purchased under compulsory purchase orders and will not receive compensation in the period in which it fails to go ahead. The planning process would be encouraged if blight compensation were paid from the beginning of such schemes, as that would provide an incentive for promoters, whether in the public or private sector, to develop them as quickly as possible.

Jeremy Corbyn: I endorse my hon. Friend's clarification, and thank him for it. I hope that the Minister has heard what we are saying and recognise that, while supporters of Crossrail want it to proceed to completion, we also want to ensure that the blight problem does not go on forever.
	I have no concerns about the involvement of the Greater London authority and the Mayor and London. Quite the opposite—I have every confidence in them, because the devolution of planning and transport matters means that they should have that involvement and planning power. Without the effective voice for London that is projected by the Mayor and the Assembly, schemes such as Crossrail would be a lot further behind.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) is well-versed as to what parliamentary procedures may be open to her, but she has received advice from her right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who I am sure has equal knowledge of these matters. There are certainly opportunities that she may like to consider taking, even at this late stage of the Session.

Tessa Jowell: I intend to propose that the House accepts all but two of the 193 amendments made by the Lords to this Bill. I ask the House to reject two Lords amendments only because they confuse the drafting of the Bill.
	This group of amendments is necessarily large because it encompasses all the technical and drafting alterations necessary for the efficient working of the Bill.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 4 with Government motion to disagree, Lords amendment No. 21, Lords amendments Nos. 28 to 31, Lords amendment No. 39, Lords amendment No. 47, Lords amendments Nos. 50 to 55, Lords amendment No. 188 and Lords amendment No. 190.

Tessa Jowell: This group of Lords amendments deals with casinos, and I propose that the House accepts all the amendments in the group except Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4, with which we disagree.
	I will briefly summarise the Government's position. I recommend that the House accepts the amendments for the simple reason that securing the Bill is important for public protection. I very much regret that the Opposition have made a reduction in the number of proposed regional casinos in the first stage a condition of their support for this Bill. The conventions and circumstances of the time, however, require agreement. The Opposition had previously supported eight such casinos, then reduced the number to four, and now insist on one. On the basis of the Government's original proposition agreed in Committee, some seven local authorities will miss out on the potential benefits for regeneration in the first stage.
	We believe that regional casinos should be tested, primarily for any impact that they might have, because of the different nature of the regime, on problem gambling, but also for their power to regenerate run-down towns and cities. As the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) is aware, we reserve the right to ask Parliament again what number of regional casinos is necessary to test their impact.

John Greenway: I apologise for not being present for the Secretary of State's speech. The lottery of the London traffic and the timing of the debate are the only excuses that I can proffer.
	Having chaired the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, I want to make three points that I consider important. First, the issue of mega-casinos has dogged the Bill from the start. It was the most contentious aspect of the Committee's work. We were introducing a new concept to the gambling environment, on which there are many different views. The Secretary of State and I might have preferred there to be more than one pilot, but it was argued in the Committee that we should recommend the trial of just one regional or destination casino. We did not do so, because at the time the concept was not in the Government's mind, but Committee members who have observed the reaching of this conclusion over the past 48 hours have expressed to me their satisfaction that we can both test the argument that a destination casino could regenerate a town such as Blackpool—which I sincerely hope will be the preferred destination, given all the time and effort that has been put in—and prove that access to machines with unlimited stakes and prizes would not lead to a rise in problem gambling. Although I believe that to be true, I know that many people are not convinced. We need this pilot, and also the pilots involving large and small casinos with significantly more machines than have hitherto been available in gambling destinations.
	I think that it would have been a grave error to allow this issue to thwart the Bill's progress. I believe that the most important recommendation made by my Committee to both Houses was that without the Bill, there would have been an increase in gambling of doubtful legality. We have seen an explosion of gambling opportunities—not just via the internet but by means of mobile telephony, often involving young people—and that is likely to increase during the next three to five years.
	It is inconceivable that Parliament could allow the Bill to fall, given the pressing need to regulate all that gambling. It is not regulated at present, and—as the Secretary of State knows, for I have said it forcefully on many occasions and in many forums over the past few months—I consider the vital point to be not how many casinos there are or how big they are, but the explosion of gambling on the internet, on websites and on mobile telephones.
	I know that visible gambling—people going into a mega-casino and playing on rank upon rank of gaming machines—offends some, but they must not ignore what I consider to be the far greater problem of unseen gambling. People may lose their homes, all their money and their whole way of life through internet gambling that is not regulated. I believe our United Kingdom industry shares my view that this must be a regulated and respected part of the gambling industry, which is why I am so glad that we are to pass a Bill that has occupied the time of so many people for so long.
	That was, in fact, my third point. I thank and pay tribute to all the many people who have been involved in the process, not just Ministers and their officials but my hon. Friends the Members for Maldon and East Chelmsford and for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and   my noble Friend Baroness Buscombe. They have devoted much time and effort to arriving at this point.
	This is a hugely challenging Bill, and I feel strongly that this is a good day for our country. We are recognising that gambling is part of the leisure industry—part of our way of life. Some people may not like it, but we must face reality, and I fervently believe that the Bill tries to do that. This is not the end of the argument, by any stretch of the imagination. The Bill sets out what is virtually a whole Parliament's work after the election: the establishing of the commission, codes of practice, regulations and the framework that will govern gambling for many years to come. I pay tribute to all who have been involved in the process.

Kevan Jones: I, too, welcome the amendment, but I am sad about one aspect. I supported the Bill at the outset, partly because it would liberalise the industry but also because—as the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said—it would regulate the parts that needed regulation. I was a member of the Standing Committee, and I found it frustrating that the Bill kept changing. If there is anything to be learned from the process and the point that we have reached today, it concerns the Government's thinking before they produce complex Bills such as this, and what they want to end up with.
	I thought that the Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Ryedale did some very good work. I am a big fan of pre-legislative scrutiny. Much of that work, sadly, was ignored, although it should have constituted the foundation of the Bill.
	The Bill was pulled in different directions. I have a lot of respect for the Minister who piloted it through Committee. He also felt on occasions that, one week, he was being pulled one way, and another week, the other way. He did a fantastic job in trying to pilot it through.
	On the issues around super-casinos, or regional casinos, I would have liked more than one. I agree that it will be difficult to have a true test with just one area. We got carried away with the fact that the super-casinos were going to be a panacea, bringing redevelopment and regeneration in all types of areas. That is why we saw a feeding frenzy of various potential applications throughout the country. Newcastle city council, a Liberal Democrat council, is trying to support an application locally. A lot of time and effort have been wasted in local government and in the gambling industry, which have not only lobbied but put forward plans. That could have been avoided if at the first stage we had been a little clearer about where we wanted to end up.
	I strongly support the proposal that the regional casino should be in a place such as Blackpool, which in its lobbying made a clear and coherent case as to why that area should be chosen. I hope that if that goes ahead, we do not wait too long before we have experiments elsewhere to judge the effects.
	On the industry as a whole, I agree with the hon. Member for Ryedale when he says that, overall, we have had a clean industry in this country. It has provided some good quality jobs and is well run. The Bill will add to that in introducing better regulation of parts of the industry. I have only one concern as regards where we are at now, with one super-casino proposed: the potential damage that has been done to the existing industry's confidence. Whichever lead Ministry after the election deals with gambling, it needs to build up relationships again with the industry and ensure that that industry, which has been well run for many years, is given the confidence to expand. It would be a mistake to think that casino gambling or another area of gambling can be predicated on one super-casino. We should not take away from the fact that some of the smaller, existing casinos do a lot of good work, not only employing people locally but ensuring the high standards to which the hon. Member for Ryedale referred.
	The Bill has had a long gestation period. It would have been a mistake if it had fallen today for the reasons that were outlined by the hon. Gentleman. Whole areas of gambling are not regulated at the moment, but they need to be regulated. That is what was sad about some of the discussion in the popular press. I understand why certain sections had the discussions concerning the super-casinos, but they did not recognise that today people can go out and gamble freely without any regulation. We need some publicity about the fact that the Bill will bring in regulation.
	In welcoming the fact that this period is coming to a close, I support the proposals, but let us hope that, post the election, we not only get the super-casinos in place but ensure that regulation under the Bill can be bedded in. Whichever Government Department deals with it after the election, it must ensure that it has good relationships with the gaming and betting industry.

Lords amendment: No. 5

Tessa Jowell: I propose that the House accepts each of the amendments in the group, which ensure the effective regulation of remote gambling.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 21 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 22

Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	Again, I propose that the House accepts the amendment, which addresses concerns raised with the Government by the greyhound industry, which has confirmed that it is happy with the amendment.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	New Clause
	Lords amendment: No. 57, after clause 177, to insert the following new clause—Christmas day.

Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	This is also known as the Santa clause. I propose that the House agrees to the amendment, which prohibits licensed gambling premises from offering gambling on Christmas day.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 58 to 193 agreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Don. Foster, Tessa Jowell, Mr. Gordon Marsden, Mr. Mark Prisk, Mr. Tom Watson to be members of the Committee; Tessa Jowell to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr.Watson.]
	To withdraw immediately.
	Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.